What are the Satanic Verses?

• Debunking the Myth of the "Satanic Verses"
• Historical Context
• The Three Versions of the Narrative
• Quranic Evidence
• Hadith Evidence
• Analysis of Weak and Fabricated Chains
• Scholarly Commentary
• Comparison Among Schools of Thought
• Conclusion
• Recommended Books

Debunking the Myth of the "Satanic Verses"

The so-called "Satanic Verses" refer to a baseless story fabricated about Prophet Muhammad ﷺ and the Qur’an, which has been exploited by Islamophobes throughout history to unjustly discredit Islam. This myth, born out of distortion and spread by individuals intent on attacking Islam, unfortunately still resurfaces today in attempts to question the authenticity of the Qur’an and the integrity of the Prophet ﷺ.

Yet, when examined closely, the absurdity of these claims quickly becomes clear. The Qur’an is divinely protected, unchanged, and beyond the reach of human or satanic tampering. Prophet Muhammad ﷺ, the final messenger, was guarded by Allah from making any errors in conveying the divine message. The narrative of the "Satanic Verses" is widely dismissed by reputable Islamic scholars as entirely fabricated and without a shred of credible evidence.

This article will shed clear light on this topic, unraveling the misinformation that surrounds it. By the end, not only will readers confidently understand the purity and authenticity of the Qur’an, but they'll also be able to recognize—and perhaps even laugh at—the sheer absurdity of this repeatedly debunked claim whenever it resurfaces.

Historical Context

The alleged incident of the “Satanic Verses” is said to have occurred in Makkah (Mecca) around the 5th year of Prophet Muhammad’s mission (approximately 615 CE). At that time, Muslims were a small persecuted group. Some had even emigrated to Abyssinia (Ethiopia) to escape oppression. During this period, Surah An-Najm (Chapter 53 of the Qur’an) was revealed to Prophet Muhammad ﷺ. According to authentic Islamic sources, the Prophet publicly recited this surah in Makkah before a gathering of Muslims and non-Muslims . Surah An-Najm is a powerful chapter that emphasizes the Prophet’s sincerity and condemns idol worship. It was the first occasion where a Qur’anic chapter containing a prostration verse (an ayah prompting listeners to bow down) was recited openly in front of both believers and disbelievers. When the Prophet finished reciting the surah, the crowd was so overwhelmed by its message that everyone present fell into prostration. The Quraysh (the leading tribe of Mecca, many of whom were pagans at the time) were astonished and moved by the recitation, so they bowed down along with the Muslims . This extraordinary moment – where even the Prophet’s opponents momentarily bowed – led to rumors that the Quraysh had accepted Islam, prompting some emigrant Muslims to return from Abyssinia .

Understanding this context is important. It shows that Surah An-Najm had a dramatic impact on its listeners. The historical setting is one of tension between the Prophet and the Quraysh: the Quraysh wanted the Prophet to stop criticizing their idols, and the Muslims longed for a breakthrough in the conflict. This is the backdrop against which later questionable reports tried to claim that something unusual (the so-called “satanic verses”) happened during the recitation of Surah An-Najm. As we will see, scholars uphold that the Prophet’s recitation was pure and divinely guided, and that nothing corrupted the message. Any claims to the contrary come from weak or fabricated reports that emerged later, not from the reliable eye-witness accounts.

The Three Versions of the Narrative

Over time, three different versions of the Surah An-Najm incident have been described in various sources. It’s important to distinguish these versions:

Version 1 – Authentic (Sahih al-Bukhari): In the most authentic version, found in Sahih al-Bukhari and other reliable hadith collections, the story is exactly as summarized above. The Prophet Muhammad ﷺ recited Surah An-Najm in full, without any errors or additions, and everyone listening (Muslims, pagans, and even jinn) was so moved that they prostrated . For example, Bukhari narrates from Ibn ‘Abbas that “The Prophet ﷺ performed a prostration when he finished reciting Surat An-Najm, and all the Muslims and pagans and Jinns and human beings prostrated along with him.” Another narration in Bukhari mentions that one elderly pagan (Umayyah bin Khalaf) couldn’t bow fully, so he placed soil on his forehead as a gesture of prostration. In this authentic version, there is no mention of the Prophet praising the pagan idols at all. The reaction of the Quraysh is attributed to the power of the Qur’an’s message, not to any compromise in the message. scholars consider Version 1 the true account of what happened. It is simple, supported by eyewitness hadith, and does not conflict with Islamic beliefs.

Version 2 – Disputed (Found in Weak Sources): A second version of the story appears in some early historical and tafsir (commentary) works, but not in the major authentic hadith books. This version claims that when the Prophet reached the verses naming the pagan goddesses (Al-Lāt, Al-‘Uzzā, and Manāt) in Surah An-Najm, Satan interfered by inserting some words of praise for those idols. The alleged added words were something like “These are the exalted gharānīq (high cranes) and indeed their intercession is to be hoped for.” In this narrative, it is said that Satan uttered those lines in the Prophet’s voice, or cast them into the Prophet’s mind, so the pagans thought the Prophet himself had praised their idols . The Quraysh supposedly rejoiced that Muhammad had acknowledged their idols, leading to their prostration out of happiness . However, this version also notes that the believers did not hear those satanic lines – implying a sort of illusion affecting only the disbelievers. Scholars classify this entire story as weak and untrustworthy. It was reported by later compilers like al-Tabari in his Tafsīr, with chains of transmission (isnāds) that are broken or contain unreliable narrators . For instance, one chain goes back to a tabi‘i (non-companion) named Muhammad ibn Ka’b, meaning there is a missing link since no Companion of the Prophet is in that chain . Weak narrators such as Muhammad ibn Humayd al-Razi, al-Kalbi, and Abu Salih appear in various versions of these reports – all of whom are considered unreliable or even fabricators by hadith scholars . Because of these flaws, Version 2 is not accepted as authentic by the vast majority of scholars. It contradicts the rigorously authenticated Version 1 and has no solid evidence from eyewitnesses.

Version 3 – Highly Controversial (Rejected by Scholars): The third version is an exaggerated variation of Version 2 and is completely rejected by scholars. It builds on the idea of satanic interference but makes an even more shocking claim: that Prophet Muhammad ﷺ himself was fooled into reciting the so-called satanic verses. In Version 3, it is said that Satan imitated the angel Jibrīl (Gabriel) during the revelation, so the Prophet heard those false words and recited them, thinking they were part of the Qur’an . According to this story, after the Prophet finished the recitation and the Quraysh prostrated, the angel Jibrīl later informed him, “I did not deliver those words to you.” The Prophet was allegedly grief-stricken at this realization, and then Allah revealed a portion of Surah Al-Hajj (22:52) to comfort and correct him . This version appears in some obscure books (e.g. in Asbāb an-Nuzūl by al-Wāhidī and other historical reports) but no reliable chain of narration supports it. Scholars roundly condemn Version 3 as a false tale, as it contradicts core Islamic beliefs about the Prophet’s protection from such error. The idea that the Prophet could not tell the difference between the devil and the angel is totally unacceptable in Islam . This story was likely spread by early storytellers and picked up by some Orientalist writers later on. Muslim scholars often refer to the entire issue as Qissat al-Gharānīq (“The Story of the Cranes”) and stress that any report suggesting the Prophet was deceived by Satan is baseless.

Why Version 1 Is Accepted: Muslims accept Version 1 as the true account because it comes through authentic hadith sources and aligns with Islamic theology. It was witnessed by trustworthy companions like Ibn ‘Abbās and ‘Abdullāh ibn Mas‘ūd and recorded in Sahih Bukhari and other texts. Versions 2 and 3, on the other hand, were never recorded in the six major hadith books (Bukhari, Muslim, Tirmidhi, Abu Dawud, Nasā’ī, Ibn Mājah) nor in the well-known Musnad of Imam Ahmad . They only appear in later compilations that included all sorts of narratives without rigorous filtering. The scholars note that every chain for the “satanic verses” story is weak or broken – there is “no authentic isnād” for it . Moreover, none of the early historians who were very careful (like Ibn Isḥāq’s student Ibn Hishām) included this story in the Prophet’s biography, which indicates they found it dubious or objectionable . Given the lack of reliable evidence and the serious theological problems in Versions 2 and 3, scholars either ignore those reports or explicitly refute them. In summary, Version 1 (the Prophet’s recitation and the universal prostration) is the only version that stands on solid ground – it is straightforward, authentically narrated, and does not conflict with the belief in the Qur’an’s divine protection.

Quranic Evidence

The Qur’an itself provides evidence that refutes the “Satanic Verses” allegation and confirms that it is protected from tampering. Key Quranic verses often cited by scholars include:

• Surah Al-Hajj 22:52 – “Never did We send a messenger or a prophet before you, except that when he recited (or intended), Satan threw something (into it); but Allah abolishes what Satan throws in. Then Allah establishes His revelations. And Allah is All-Knowing, All-Wise.” . This verse is directly relevant because it is sometimes misunderstood by people spreading the false story. In reality, this verse does not support the idea that Satan can alter the Qur’an – quite the opposite. It says that if Satan ever tried to interfere with a prophet’s message, Allah cancels the satanic influence and firmly establishes the true revelation . According to mainstream tafsir (exegesis), this verse comforts the Prophet by saying that all prophets face satanic opposition, but God’s words ultimately triumph . scholars explain that the “satanic interference” mentioned could refer to things like mishearing by the audience, distractions, or false rumors – not that the Prophet himself spoke Satan’s words . In fact, scholars like Imam Ash-Shawkāni interpret 22:52 to mean “Satan inspired those words to the disbelievers, and the Prophet ﷺ did not speak them.” . Thus, Surah Al-Hajj 22:52, when read fully, affirms Allah’s protection of the prophetic revelations. It clearly states “Allah abolishes what Satan throws in”, meaning nothing of Satan’s suggestions remains in the final scripture. This dismantles the claim that any satanic verse became part of the Qur’an – Allah Himself guarantees to remove any such falsehood.

• Surah An-Najm 53:19-23 – “Have you considered (the idols) Al-Lāt and Al-‘Uzzā, and Manāt, the third one…? What! For you the males and for Him the females? That indeed is an unfair division. They are nothing but names you have named – you and your forefathers – for which Allah has sent down no authority...”. These are the actual verses of Surah An-Najm that mention the pagan goddesses. Importantly, the content of these verses is a strong denial of the idols’ legitimacy. Allah is criticizing the pagans for elevating these “names” and for their illogical belief that angels (whom they called Allah’s daughters) could be intermediaries . There is no praise or acceptance of the idols at all in the Qur’an’s text. In fact, right after verse 23, the surah continues to reject the idea that humans can arbitrarily set partners with God, and it affirms God’s supreme authority. If we hypothetically insert the fabricated line praising the idols into this passage (after verse 20), the result is nonsense – it breaks the flow and contradicts the verses before and after . Scholars often point out that Surah Najm 53:3-4 earlier states, “He (the Prophet) does not speak from his desire. It is nothing but revelation revealed.” . It would be impossible for the Prophet to “immediately add” two polytheistic lines into the recitation right after affirming he only speaks revelation . The internal evidence of Surah An-Najm thus refutes the alleged satanic verses. The Qur’an’s message in this surah is consistently against idol worship, from start to finish. This makes it clear that the Qur’an was never “altered” to appease the pagans. The story of the cranes (gharānīq) is a later false addition that doesn’t fit the Qur’anic text at all .

• Surah Fussilat 41:42 – “Falsehood cannot approach it (the Qur’an) from before it or behind it; (it is) a revelation from a (Lord who is) Wise and Praiseworthy.” This verse, while not directly about the story, is often cited to show that no falsehood can touch the Qur’an. It assures that the Qur’an is protected from every angle – meaning no lies, errors, or satanic suggestions can infiltrate it. Combined with Allah’s promise in Surah Al-Hijr 15:9 – “Indeed, We have sent down the Reminder (Qur’an) and indeed We will be its guardian” – Muslims understand that Allah guards the Qur’an from corruption.

• Surah Al-Hajj 22:51-52 (context around the verse) – The verse right before 22:52 says, “But those who strive to oppose Our revelations – they are the Companions of the Fire.” And 22:53 (right after) says, “(Allah allows this) to make what Satan throws a trial for those whose hearts are diseased and hardened...”. Together, these ayat show that any attempt of Satan is a test to expose the insincere, not a failure of the Prophet. The insincere or weak-hearted might latch onto lies (like the fabricated verses), but the faithful know Allah’s word remains pure. These verses actually predict that disbelievers will spread false rumors or misunderstandings, but true believers will not be swayed because Allah “makes precise His verses” . Thus, the Qur’anic evidence, when properly understood, completely debunks the notion that the Qur’an contained satanic content. Instead, it emphasizes divine protection and the futility of Satan’s tricks.

In summary, the Qur’an asserts its own purity and the Prophet’s reliability. Verses like 53:3-4 and 69:44-47 (which says if Muhammad forged anything God would seize him ) underline that Prophet Muhammad ﷺ would never deliver false revelation. And verses like 22:52 and 15:9 guarantee that if any tampering is attempted, Allah removes it and guards the Qur’an. These clear statements from the Qur’an itself reassure us that the so-called “satanic verses” story is not compatible with the Qur’an’s message or its preservation.

Hadith Evidence

In addition to the Qur’an, the Hadith (recorded sayings and actions of Prophet Muhammad ﷺ) provide evidence that rejects the “Satanic Verses” story and supports the authentic version of events. Here are some key hadiths and traditions:

• Sahih al-Bukhari (Hadith 4862, 4863) – These narrations, partially mentioned earlier, confirm what happened when the Prophet recited Surah An-Najm. In Bukhari 4862, Ibn ‘Abbās reports that everyone prostrated when the Prophet finished reciting Surah An-Najm . In Bukhari 4863, ‘Abdullāh (Ibn Mas‘ūd) adds that this was the first time a surah with a prostration was revealed, and that upon the Prophet’s sajdah (prostration), “everybody behind him prostrated except a man (Umayyah bin Khalaf) who put a handful of dust to his forehead”. Neither of these most authentic reports contain any hint of the Prophet reciting something in praise of idols. They highlight the power of the Qur’an and how even the pagans were momentarily humbled by it. These sahih hadiths are the basis for Version 1 and are widely accepted by all scholars. They implicitly contradict Version 2 and 3 because if anything unusual had happened (like the Prophet speaking words not from the Qur’an), the Companions narrating the event would have mentioned it. Instead, their reports are straightforward and free of any “satanic verses” detail.

• Hadiths on Qur’an’s Preservation – While there isn’t a single hadith that says “the Qur’an is protected from Satan” in those exact words, numerous hadiths and events underscore the idea of the Qur’an’s divine preservation and the Prophet’s care in conveying it accurately. For example, the Prophet ﷺ used to eagerly repeat the revelation with Angel Jibrīl to memorize it, until Allah reassured him in the Qur’an not to worry, as Allah Himself would ensure he does not forget (see Qur’an 87:6-7, and related hadith in Bukhari about the revelation process). This indicates that the Prophet was under divine supervision while transmitting the Qur’an. Another evidence is that the Prophet had scribes write down each revelation immediately and had many Companions memorize it. This system of writing and memorization from the start makes it impossible for an inserted false verse to go unnoticed. There is also a famous hadith where the Prophet said: “Beware! I have been given the Qur’an and something like it along with it.” (Abu Dawud, referring to the Sunnah) – which implies that only what Allah gave him (Qur’an and true guidance) did he convey, nothing else. In another hadith, the Prophet ﷺ said: “Whoever tells a lie about me intentionally, let him prepare his seat in the Fire.” (Bukhari). By analogy, forging words in the Qur’an – which is even more serious – is utterly against everything the Prophet taught. No authentic hadith shows the Prophet ever compromised the message. On the contrary, hadiths show he was willing to suffer persecution rather than mix truth with falsehood.

• Report of Long-Time Companions – Some Companions of the Prophet who were present in Mecca during that period explicitly denied any such incident. For instance, Abdullāh ibn Mas‘ūd is reported to have described the Surah An-Najm recitation incident without any mention of extra verses, only that believers and disbelievers all bowed . It is also telling that no Companion protested or was troubled by the Surah An-Najm event afterward in authentic narrations. If, hypothetically, the Prophet had spoken words of shirk (associating partners with God) even momentarily, it would have caused a huge confusion or crisis among the early Muslims. There are no reliable reports of such confusion. The hadith literature does record other difficult incidents (like the temporary boycott of speaking to the Prophet after Treaty of Hudaybiyyah, or personal mistakes some sahaba made), which shows Companions did not hide issues. The absence of any concern from them about Surah An-Najm strongly suggests nothing improper happened.

• Hadith of Divine Protection – While not directly about the Qur’an, there is a narration where the Prophet ﷺ said: “There is none of you except that a companion from among the jinn (devil) has been assigned to him.” The Companions asked, even you O Messenger of Allah? He said, “Even me, except that Allah has helped me against him and he has submitted, so he only whispers good to me.” (Sahih Muslim 2814). This indicates that Allah gave special protection to His Messenger from the influence of Satan. Although this hadith is about personal whispers, by greater reason the Prophet was protected in the delivery of revelation, which is a far more important matter. This aligns with the Islamic belief that prophets (especially in conveying God’s message) are ma‘ṣūm (infallible, protected from mistakes).

In essence, the hadith evidence supports the view that the Qur’an was delivered to the people exactly as revealed, with no devilish insertion. Authentic hadiths affirm the true story (Version 1) and there are hadith-based arguments against the false story: for example, hadiths telling us the Prophet’s character and the nature of revelation make it inconceivable that he would utter something from Satan. Additionally, later hadith scholars collected all narrations about this topic and declared the ones suggesting satanic influence as unauthentic. Imām Al-Bayhaqi, a famous hadith scholar, examined the chains and said “this story is unauthentic... one of the narrators is criticized... and his narration is rejected” . Imām Ibn Khuzaymah (another hadith master) outright said “This story was fabricated by the heretics.” . These statements are essentially hadith experts confirming that there is no legitimate hadith backing the “satanic verses” tale. Therefore, Muslims rely on the sound hadith (like those in Bukhari) which show the Qur’an was recited without error, and dismiss any reports to the contrary as weak or fabricated.

Analysis of Weak and Fabricated Chains

Scholars are meticulous in examining the chain of narrators (isnād) for any Islamic report. The story of the “Satanic Verses” is an example of a narrative that fails the hadith science tests. Let’s look at why the chains of transmission for Versions 2 and 3 are considered weak or fabricated:

• Broken Chain (Mursal): The most cited chain for the story goes back to Muhammad ibn Ka’b al-Quraẓī, who was a tabi‘i (a member of the generation after the Companions). He was not an eyewitness, as he wasn’t alive at the time of the incident. Such a chain is called mursal (missing the Companion link). Ibn Ka’b could only have heard the story from a Companion, but he never names which Companion (if any). This means the chain is incomplete and not acceptable as proof on such a grave matter . All known chains for this story are mursal or broken as noted by scholars like Ibn Kathīr .

• Unreliable Narrators: Even worse, some narrators in these chains have bad reputations. For example, Muhammad ibn Humayd al-Rāzī appears in at least one chain (he was a source for al-Tabari). Ibn Humayd is considered weak; several hadith critics accused him of dishonesty in transmitting hadith. Another name is al-Kalbi (Muḥammad ibn al-Sā’ib al-Kalbi), who is infamous for lying in narrations, especially in biblical-Islamic stories. Reports coming solely through al-Kalbi (especially from his student Abu Ṣāliḥ from Ibn ‘Abbās) are basically considered fabricated. Indeed, one version of the story was reported “from Ibn ‘Abbās” but via the chain of al-Kalbi → Abu Ṣāliḥ, which makes it unreliable . Notably, Ibn ‘Abbās (a Companion) was only a child at the time of the incident and could not have been an eyewitness, further indicating that any chain claiming to be from him is suspect .

• Weak Source Documents: The main early sources that collected this story (like al-Tabari’s Tārīkh and Tafsīr, or al-Wāḥidī’s Asbāb al-Nuzūl, and some later historical works) were not hadith books with strict filtering. As Sh. Yasir Qadhi explains, al-Tabari included everything he heard in his history and tafsir, whether authentic or not . Al-Wāḥidī similarly compiled reports of causes of revelation with varying reliability. These works served as encyclopedias, not as authenticated sources. The authors often themselves indicate that a story’s chain is weak. For example, Tabari’s chain for the incident has at least five narrators, but none of them is confirmed to be sound enough to carry such information. By contrast, sahih hadith usually have shorter, well-known chains. No sound hadith chain exists for the satanic verses story – a fact repeatedly pointed out by scholars .

• Contradictory Versions: Another sign of fabrication is that the various weak reports contradict each other on important details. Scholars have noted there are “more than 15 different texts” of the accusation, disagreeing on things like : 1) When it supposedly happened (some said early Mecca, some later), 2) What exactly the Prophet supposedly said (the wording of the alleged satanic line varies), 3) Who heard it – some versions claim only pagans heard it, others imply everyone did, and 4) What happened after – some say Gabriel corrected the Prophet, others don’t mention that at all. Such inconsistency is a hallmark of unsound reports. If something truly occurred, reports about it tend to line up on the main facts. Here, the only common thread in the weak reports is that “some compromise happened”, but they can’t even agree on the narrative. This weakens their credibility further .

• Lack of Multiple Strong Chains: In Islamic scholarship, a report gains strength if multiple independent chains from different companions all back it up. For the satanic verses story, every chain is questionable, and there is no authentic chain at all – let alone multiple ones – from any Companion. This is highly unusual for an event of such supposed significance. Contrast this with major events in the Prophet’s life (like the migration or battles) which are mass-transmitted by many people. Here, the silence of reliable Companions is deafening. As one scholar put it, if this really happened, “it would have been narrated by some of the many Companions… (but) the Muslim nation has unanimously agreed the Prophet is infallible (in delivering God’s message)” . The consensus (ijmā‘) among hadith scholars is that the “gharānīq” story is not established.

Specific narrators and commentators have been criticized regarding this story: Al-Bazzār (a hadith scholar) said “we do not know (this story) to have a chain that is connected to the Prophet.” Al-Bayhaqi rejected it due to a discredited narrator in the chain . We’ve mentioned Ibn Khuzaymah calling it a fabrication . Even Imam Ibn Hajar al-‘Asqalānī (a 15th-century hadith master) and Imam an-Nawawī (13th-century scholar) – though not contemporary to the event – in their works also dismissed the incident as false based on the evidence. They noted its absence in the rigorously authenticated collections and the implausibility of it. Later, Shaykh Nasiruddin al-Albani in modern times likewise evaluated all chains and declared the story “mawḍū‘” (fabricated).

In summary, the chain-of-narration analysis shows that the story fails on all accounts: it has no unbroken, reliable lineage back to the Prophet, and it contains narrators known to be weak or liars. According to hadith sciences, a story of this nature cannot be accepted as true. It stands on shaky evidence that collapses under scrutiny. Therefore, scholars categorically reject the satanic verses reports as fabrications or errors of transmitters, not something that actually occurred to the Prophet Muhammad ﷺ.

Scholarly Commentary

Scholars across the centuries – including classical authorities and modern scholars – have examined this issue and concluded that the “Satanic Verses” story is false. They often use very strong words in denouncing it. Here is a summary of what some renowned scholars have said:

• Ibn Kathīr (1300s CE) – the famous Qur’an commentator – addresses this story in his Tafsīr (exegesis) of Surah Al-Hajj 22:52. After reviewing the reports, Ibn Kathīr states that none of the narrations of this incident are authentic. He writes that “all these narrations have no sanad (chain) which is sahīh. In fact, they are mursal and unreliable.” . In the quote recorded in an Islamic fatwa, Ibn Kathīr said: “Many commentators have mentioned the story of the Gharānīq... however, all such narrations have no connected chain of narration and none of them has an authentic chain.” . He also recounts how the rumor of the Quraysh accepting Islam reached the Muslims in Abyssinia, implying the story arose from a misunderstanding. Overall, Ibn Kathīr firmly rejects the idea that the Prophet uttered those alleged words, considering the story a false addition to the Prophetic biography.

• Imam al-Nawawī (1200s CE) – a great hadith scholar and jurist, known for his commentary on Sahih Muslim and other works. While Imam Nawawī did not write a separate book on this topic, he and scholars of his caliber generally uphold that the Prophet is protected from such error. In discussing prophetic infallibility (‘ismah), Nawawī and others assert that it is impossible for the Prophet to deliver a revelation inaccurately. We can infer Nawawī’s stance from his agreement with the consensus that Qāḍī ‘Iyāḍ mentions (see below). Given that Nawawī was extremely strict about hadith authenticity, any story not in the sahih books – especially one implying the Prophet could be deceived by Satan – would be deemed unacceptable to him. (In fact, later scholars note that no reliable hadith exists for the story, so someone like Nawawī simply wouldn’t consider it legit.)

• Ibn Ḥajar al-‘Asqalānī (1440s CE) – the preeminent commentator on Sahih Bukhari (Fath al-Bārī). In his commentary on the hadith of Surah An-Najm’s prostration, Ibn Ḥajar discusses the Gharānīq story. He notes that the story does not appear in any of the authentic books, and he cites the declarations of earlier hadith masters that the story is spurious. He highlights that the incident is not mentioned by Ibn Isḥāq or Ibn Hishām in the standard prophetic biography, except through unconfirmed channels. Ibn Ḥajar’s conclusion aligns with the consensus: the incident “has no reliable basis”. He also points out that had it been true, it would conflict with the Qur’an itself (like verses 53:3-4 and 69:44-47 which guarantee the Prophet’s truthfulness). So, Ibn Ḥajar treats it as a false report that was perhaps spread by storytellers.

• Qāḍī ‘Iyāḍ (d. 1149 CE) – a distinguished Maliki judge and author of Ash-Shifā bi Ta‘rīf Ḥuqūq al-Muṣṭafā (a famous book on the status and rights of the Prophet). Qāḍī ‘Iyāḍ explicitly addressed this matter, stating that it cannot be true. He wrote: “The ummah (Muslim nation) has unanimously agreed that the Prophet ﷺ is infallible (ma‘ṣūm) against conveying anything falsely on behalf of Allah – whether deliberately, unintentionally, or by mistake or forgetfulness.” . In other words, the very idea of the Prophet being tricked into mixing Satan’s words into revelation is unanimously rejected by all scholars. This is a powerful statement of ijmā‘ (consensus). Qāḍī ‘Iyāḍ includes this story as something that must be rejected to uphold the Prophet’s honor and the truth of Islam. He also likely labeled the story itself as fabricated.

• Al-Bayhaqī (d. 1066 CE) – an early Shafi‘i scholar and hadith expert. He investigated the chains of this story and concluded, “This story is unauthentic... one of the narrators is criticized by hadith scholars and his narration is rejected.” . We saw that he quoted Ibn Khuzaymah calling it a fabrication by heretics. Bayhaqī’s stance was that no sound hadith supports the story, so it must be discarded.

• Imam Ash-Shawkānī (d. 1839 CE) – a later Yemeni scholar who wrote a tafsir and hadith works. He refuted the story using the Qur’an: citing verses like 69:44-47 and 53:3 (that the Prophet wouldn’t lie about God, and speaks only revelation) . Shawkānī said: “None of this (story) has been proven true by any chain of narration. Despite its falsehood, scholars have refuted it with the Book of Allah.” . He interpreted that if any interference happened, it was external and the Prophet did not speak those words . Essentially, Shawkānī considered it baseless and in contradiction with Quranic principles.

• Modern Scholars: In recent times, scholars and authors continue to reject the Satanic Verses story. For instance, Maulana Muhammad Shibli Nomani and Syed Suleiman Nadwi (in their Seerah works) dismiss it as unfounded. Dr. Muhammad Mohar Ali and Mufti Taqi Usmani (20th century scholars) have written responses to orientalist claims, reaffirming that the Qur’an has never been compromised. They often cite the same classical arguments: lack of authentic evidence and theological impossibility. Sheikh Nasir al-Albani, as mentioned, checked the hadith sources and classified the story as fabricated (mauḍū‘). Dr. Yasir Qadhi and many contemporary scholars teaching seerah (Prophetic biography) also clarify to students that the Gharānīq story is a later myth with zero reliable isnād, kept alive mostly by non-Muslim writers rather than the Muslim scholarly tradition.

It’s worth noting that a few past Muslim scholars did mention or even tentatively accept Version 2 (the least problematic version where the Prophet didn’t personally speak the words). For example, Ibn Taymiyyah (d. 1328 CE), a prominent scholar, believed the incident might have happened in a form where the Prophet did not intentionally utter anything wrong and it was quickly corrected . However, Ibn Taymiyyah’s view was unique and he tried to explain it in a way that doesn’t impugn the Prophet. Even he rejected the idea that the revelation remained corrupted – he emphasized it was immediately fixed and served as a test, not a permanent flaw . Despite his opinion, later scholars like Al-Albani and others critiqued it, and the overwhelming majority stance is still that nothing of the sort occurred at all. Ibn Taymiyyah’s own student Ibn Kathīr did not follow that opinion, as we saw.

In conclusion, the consensus (ijmā‘) of scholarship is that the “Satanic Verses” incident is not a true historical event. Classical scholars (across schools of thought) branded it unauthentic and absurd, and modern scholars continue to uphold that. The Prophet Muhammad’s integrity and the Qur’an’s purity are non-negotiable in Islamic creed, so any story that undermines these is rejected. The scholarly commentary throughout history serves to reassure Muslims that this story is a myth, not a part of our Prophet’s noble life.

Comparison Among Schools of Thought

The question often arises: did scholars of different madhhabs (legal schools) – Hanafi, Maliki, Shafi‘i, Hanbali – have any differences on this issue? The short answer is no, not in conclusion. All schools of thought accept the fundamental tenet that prophets are protected from delivering false revelations and that the Qur’an is preserved from corruption. Thus, Hanafi, Shafi‘i, Maliki, and Hanbali scholars uniformly reject the Satanic Verses story as incompatible with these principles.

To elaborate:

• Hanafi: Many early Hanafi scholars were also hadith transmitters or commentators. For instance, the scholar Abu Ja’far aṭ-Ṭaḥāwī (a Hanafi jurist) in his famous creed stated that the Qur’an is the uncreated word of Allah, untouched by any falsehood. Later Hanafi commentators and historians, such as those of the Indian subcontinent or the Ottoman era, treated the Gharānīq tale as an unfounded story spread by enemies of Islam. They found no jurisprudential or theological use for it except to refute it. Hanafi tafsirs (like those by al-Jassās or others) when discussing 22:52 or 53:19, deny any actual satanic utterance by the Prophet.

• Maliki: Being the school of Qāḍī ‘Iyāḍ (mentioned above) and other North African scholars, the Malikis were particularly firm in defending the Prophet’s infallibility. Qāḍī ‘Iyāḍ’s authoritative statement of consensus about the Prophet’s protection from such error is widely quoted. Maliki scholars view the Satanic Verses story as a slander against the Prophet. They often cite it as an example of what a Muslim must not believe, under the category of “things disrespectful to the Prophet” which Qāḍī ‘Iyāḍ enumerated in Ash-Shifā. Malikis, like others, rely on the authentic seerah (Prophetic biography) which does not include this incident.

• Shafi‘i: Many Shafi‘i scholars were leading hadith experts (e.g., Imams an-Nawawī, Ibn Hajar, as well as Al-Bayhaqī, and later scholars like as-Suyūṭī). We have seen Nawawī and Ibn Hajar’s stances. Al-Suyūṭī (15th century Shafi‘i scholar) included the story in his encyclopedic tafsir ad-Durr al-Manthūr but also noted the weakness of its chains. Shafi‘i theologians stress that prophets have ‘ismah. So, Shafi‘i scholarship also unanimously rejects any suggestion the Prophet mistakenly recited words from Satan. They either interpret 22:52 in a different way (like Shawkānī and Al-Ālūsī did, who leaned to Shafi‘i thought) or simply dismiss the story as a fabrication, as Ash-Shawkānī explicitly does .

• Hanbali: Among Hanbali scholars, Ibn Taymiyyah had a nuanced view, as mentioned, where he entertained a version but insisted it didn’t corrupt the Qur’an. However, his view was not that the Qur’an contains satanic verses – he believed Allah removed them. Other Hanbalis, like Ibn al-Jawzī (who wrote al-Mawḍū‘āt, a collection of fabricated hadiths), would count this story among the fabrications. Modern Hanbali-influenced scholars, such as those from Saudi Arabia’s scholarship (e.g., the Permanent Committee, or scholars like Shaykh Ibn Bāz and Ibn ‘Uthaymīn), unequivocally state the story is false and that no devil can interfere with the revelation.

Given all of the above, we see remarkable agreement across scholarship. There might be slight differences in approach: for example, how they explain Surah 22:52 – some say it refers to an attempted interference external to the Prophet, others say it refers to general attempts against all prophets – but none of the respected scholars of any school say that the Qur’an actually included satanic words. They also agree that the Prophet did not approve of pagan idols at any moment. In fact, a contemporary academic Shahab Ahmed noted that today “with a few maverick exceptions, [the incident is] universally rejected by Muslims of all sects and schools –, Shia, Hanafi, Shafi‘i, Maliki, Hanbali, Salafi, etc., on pain of being deemed heretical”. This shows that denying the story isn’t a fringe opinion; it’s the orthodox Muslim position across all schools.

In summary, whether one follows the Hanafi, Maliki, Shafi‘i, or Hanbali school (or any mainstream approach), the viewpoint is the same: the “Satanic Verses” incident did not truly happen and has no impact on the purity of Islamic doctrine. The unity on this issue underscores how crucial it is in Islamic creed to uphold the Prophet’s truthfulness and the Qur’an’s authenticity.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the story of the “Satanic Verses” is a false legend that does not hold up under scrutiny. From a scholarly perspective, we have seen that:

• The Qur’an has been sent by Allah and remains unaltered and divinely protected. Allah’s words cannot be corrupted by any human or jinn. The Qur’an itself testifies to this protection and contains no trace of any so-called satanic verses. Every verse in it is from Allah, and none from Satan .

• Prophet Muhammad ﷺ delivered the message of Islam with complete honesty and fidelity. He never compromised with shirk (idolatry), even under immense pressure. The authentic sources depict him as steadfast and guarded by Allah from mistakes in conveying revelation . The alleged incident of him being deceived by Satan is a later fabrication, rejected by the Prophet’s companions, by the Qur’an, and by reason.

• Muslims should rely on authentic sources (Qur’an and Sahih Hadith) for knowledge of the Prophet’s life, and those sources show a picture of integrity and consistency. We should be cautious about dubious stories found in weak historical reports or propagated by non-Muslim critics. Just because something is written in an early history book does not mean it’s true – Islamic scholarship demands verification. In this case, the verification process shows the story to be baseless.

• When faced with misconceptions like the “Satanic Verses”, Muslims are encouraged to respond with knowledge and confidence. One should explain that this story comes from unauthentic narrations and conflicts with our core beliefs. It’s helpful to highlight that even Western academics note the unanimity of the Muslim rejection of this story in preserving the Qur’an’s integrity.

• The truth and beauty of Islam shine through the fact that the Qur’an has been preserved letter for letter for over fourteen centuries. This preservation is a living miracle – millions have memorized it, and not a single alleged “satanic” line exists in any copy or memory. Such purity is unmatched. It fulfills the promise that Allah’s light will not be extinguished by falsehood. Understanding this should increase our faith and gratitude.

As Muslims, we also recognize the wisdom behind false allegations: they test us and push us to learn more. By studying this topic, we end up appreciating the Qur’an’s authenticity even more. Every challenge against the Qur’an has failed, and often those challenges lead to a greater awareness of the Qur’an’s miraculous preservation. In history, when enemies of Islam spread the “Satanic Verses” story, scholars rose to the occasion to refute it in detail – and thus educated the masses.

In closing, let us reaffirm what we know with certainty: The Qur’an is the Word of Allah, preserved and pure. Prophet Muhammad ﷺ was the most truthful messenger, whom Allah protected from satanic influence in delivering revelation. Any claims otherwise are fabrications that we discard. We should take pride in our rich scholarly heritage that scrutinizes every narrative. And we should encourage fellow Muslims to learn from reliable scholars, so that misinformation has no chance to confuse us.

The “Satanic Verses” incident is a myth – but the legacy of the Qur’an’s preservation is reality. By focusing on that reality, we strengthen our conviction and can calmly address any doubts. Let us always return to the Qur’an and authentic Sunnah for guidance, and thank Allah for safeguarding our religion’s sources.

Recommended Books

For those interested in learning more and seeing scholarly discussions on this topic, here are some widely recognized books and resources that address the “Satanic Verses” incident and the preservation of the Qur’an:

• Tafsir Ibn Kathir (14th century) – by Imām Ismā‘īl ibn Kathīr. Volume on Surah Al-Hajj 22:52 and Surah An-Najm provides analysis and rejection of the gharānīq story. Ibn Kathir’s work is a standard commentary that explains why the story is not authentic .

• Al-Shifā (Ash-Shifa) – by Qāḍī ‘Iyāḍ. A classical book focusing on the rights and attributes of Prophet Muhammad ﷺ. In it, Qāḍī ‘Iyāḍ discusses the Prophet’s infallibility and dismisses slanders. He explicitly mentions the consensus that the Prophet would not err in conveying revelation . This book gives insight into creed regarding the Prophethood.

• Fath al-Bārī – by Ibn Hajar al-‘Asqalānī. This is the definitive commentary on Sahih al-Bukhari. Look at the commentary on Hadith 4862/4863 (Kitāb al-Tafsīr) about Surah Najm. Ibn Hajar analyzes reports and affirms that only the authentic version (without any satanic verses) is acceptable. He also references earlier hadith masters’ verdicts on the story’s chains.

• “The Sealed Nectar” (Ar-Raheeq al-Makhtum) – by Safiur-Rahman Mubarakpuri. A modern, award-winning biography of the Prophet. It narrates the events of the fifth year of Prophethood, including the recitation of Surah Najm and the reaction of Quraysh, without endorsing the false story. The author, following authentic sources, clarifies the context (like the migration to Abyssinia) in a reader-friendly way. It’s a great resource for the overall seerah with sound scholarship.

• Uloom al-Qur’an (An Introduction to the Sciences of the Quran) – by Ahmad von Denffer (or similar works by Abu Ammaar Yasir Qadhi or Manna’ al-Qattan). These books contain chapters on the preservation of the Qur’an and address orientalists’ claims. They usually mention why the “Satanic Verses” story is not accepted, under the topic of the integrity of the Qur’anic text.

• Majmu’ Al-Fatāwā – by Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah. In one of his treatises (often cited from volume 35, or in some analyses of Sirah), Ibn Taymiyyah discusses the incident. Although he had a unique take, reading his arguments can be informative to understand how even if someone assumed it happened, it doesn’t tarnish the Qur’an (because Allah removed it). However, one should also see later scholars’ critiques. It’s more advanced reading, but relevant for deep research.

• Sirat Rasul Allah (The Life of Muhammad) – by Ibn Ishaq, edited by Ibn Hisham. The earliest biography of the Prophet. Interestingly, Ibn Hisham’s recension (which is what we have) omits the Satanic Verses story entirely, suggesting he did not consider it reliable enough to include. Some translations/annotations discuss this omission. It’s useful to see that one of the oldest biographical sources of Islam does not narrate the incident as fact.

• Articles/Fatwas by Modern Scholars: For instance, “Refutation of the Story of the Cranes (Gharaniq)” on IslamWeb (Fatwa No. 119716 and 307792) , or writings by Dr. Yasir Qadhi (like his lecture transcript we quoted) . These provide summaries of evidence in a contemporary voice. They are often available online and can help address questions succinctly.